AITA for suggesting we split the inheritance evenly?

A Reddit user describes a conflict with her three sisters over the inheritance of their late father’s property. After their father passed away without a will, the sisters initially agreed that one sister, Noel, would inherit the house she had been living in for years, while the commercial property would be split among all four sisters.

However, when it was discovered that they wouldn’t have to pay inheritance taxes, the user suggested they split the house equally as well, using their father’s life insurance to cover the taxes. Tensions arose when Noel felt she deserved the house for being their father’s caregiver, and now the sisters are divided. Read the full story below for more details.

‘ AITA for suggesting we split the inheritance evenly?’

I (39F) am one of four sisters, and our father passed away without a will. He owned two properties: a house where my sister Noel (37F) lives with her family, and a commercial property. We live in Japan.

Noel and her husband moved in with our father 16 years ago due to financial issues. As his health declined, she became his primary caregiver, paying no rent or utilities. After his passing, we discovered he had left behind debt, though the mortgage was cleared upon his d**th.

We initially agreed to split the commercial property equally among the four of us. Our accountant suggested Noel inherit the house and land to reduce inheritance taxes, given that she had lived there for over three years. Noel assured us that, though the house would be in her name for tax purposes, it would remain a family home, and we could still use it if needed. We also agreed that income from the commercial property would cover property taxes.

I supported this plan but wanted to ensure decisions about the property stayed within the four sisters, avoiding complications with husbands and children. I emphasized that their children and husbands would still receive their fair share, but wouldn’t be involved in decision-making.

My sisters disagreed, believing it would simplify things if they could leave their share to their children or husbands. Later, we found out we wouldn’t have to pay inheritance tax, so I suggested splitting the house four ways, using life insurance to cover taxes.

Noel was upset and Sam (36F) sided with Noel, arguing she deserved the house for caring for Dad. I’m concerned that if Noel remarries and passes away before her new husband, he might have rights to the house.

Noel offered to write a contract stating the house would go to her children, but I argued that if we’re using commercial property income for taxes, it’s only fair all four sisters have a share. This disagreement has caused significant tension, with Noel accusing me of not understanding the situation and insisting we stick to the original plan.

Here’s what the community had to contribute:

Quick-Possession-245 −  If she gets the house, she should not get a share of the commercial property. Would that even things out?

Horror_Ad7540 −  You’re not an AH for suggesting it, but you would be for not dropping the suggestion now that you’ve seen the reaction. It sounds like Noel earned that house by being your father’s primary caretaker, and that includes the right to pass it on to whoever she chooses.

You and the other two siblings should just write off any ownership claims you have on it, and limit yourself to 1/4 of the commercial property income. Be glad your sister could be there for your father, and be glad she and her family had a place to go when they needed it.
You don’t mention being in great financial need yourself. If you were in desperate need, that might change the situation.

PieknaFatso −  “I’m concerned that if Noel remarries and passes away before her new husband, he might have rights to the house.
Noel offered to write a contract stating the house would go to her children, “

If this is your GENUINE concern, it seems easy to resolve; and she has offered to do so.. Why is that not sufficient?
That aside, you say she was his primary caretaker – and then you qualify that as not needing to do much, which seems odd, given you could’ve just said she lived with him.

If she did look after him due to health issues, I think it’s fair that there is some recognition with that within the inheritance, even if it is relatively small.

Cultural_Section_862 −  YTA was ut only fair that she was his primary caregiver for over a decade? was it fair that she was the one that got to watch his decline first hand? was it fair that likely did things as part of his care you can’t imagine, like wiping his ass- all while watching him waste away. . Was all that f**king fair? you’re worried about dollars when you have no sense. 

Outside_Guidance4752 −  NTA. The first deal isn’t fair at all. You helped with care at the end when it was most needed too and sounds like she was a bit neglectful at times. That aside, no will means everything should be split in four.

Sister got free housing for a decade, now she gets full ownership of the house ( “it’s still a family home” NO it’s not), a quarter of the ownership of the rest AND the income from the commercial property will pay HER property tax on the house forever- so she gets to live for free.

I would put my foot down. If she gets the house that’s fine, but then she doesn’t get a quarter of anything else and she pays her own income tax.

Sea-Tea-4130 −  NTA-Splitting it evenly makes sense.

SpiteWestern6739 −  NTA, If they don’t want to split things equally they need to buy out your shares, they don’t deserve the house because they “looked after your father” he was looking after them by giving them somewhere to stay

tatsrus1 −  Technically you’re right that it’s more “fair” to split all of the assets equally. However it seems to me that the care for your father was not split equally at all. Whether her motivations were pure or not, the fact of the matter is she took a lot of time out of her life to take care of your father and the rest of you did not.

Did you support him financially while he was ill? I’m guessing no. In addition, your sister doesn’t really have the means to buy out any of the other sisters. What is more important to you? Get 1/4 of a house or keep your sisters in your life.

You are technically right but based on whatever morals you have you may or may not be morally right. I think the fact that your other sisters who stand to lose as much as you are fighting against you should say something. This isn’t about a money grab from your sister.

TheSilverFalcon −  So, this is f**e. You didn’t even google what the housing market is like in Japan. It is a very unique market in which houses do not grow in price over time, rather they depreciate.

Most houses in Japan are destroyed after 30 years, and older houses are worth from basically nothing to negative amounts. If your sister has lived there for 16 years and your father for longer, then this house is, at minimum, more than 20 years old. It’s almost certainly close to worthless, at best.

Ghostthroughdays −  INFO: Yes, the who took care of dad saved on rent and utilities but it is hard to care for an ailing elder.